quite frankly government should not be involved in marriage at all (straight, gay, or otherwise). let the churches/believers/faiths either say yay or nay we'll perform the ceremony - based on their religious "principle" - and other churches/believers/faiths that have no problem with it be able to perform them. Forget the tax breaks and other "perks" go away.

I agree too. I think the government should only have the right to determine the civil union and all the benefits that go with such union. Whether or not such civil union is called marriage should be left for the churches and the people to decide. In this way, there won't be so much resistance and conflicts like we have now. However, the gay organizations and gay activists are not satisfied with such solution.

I agree too. I think the government should only have the right to determine the civil union and all the benefits that go with such union. Whether or not such civil union is called marriage should be left for the churches and the people to decide. In this way, there won't be so much resistance and conflicts like we have now. However, the gay organizations and gay activists are not satisfied with such notion.

There are plenty of churches who will still marry gay couples. It's these marriages being recognized by the government is what gay people are fighting for. Some people don't consider interracial/cross-generational marriages as "legitimate" marriages, but their opinion is negligible and those couples are still given the civil rights of every other couple, and that should be a right for LGBT people too.

It's these marriages being recognized by the government is what gay people are fighting for.

I don't think so. Many conservatives have wanted it to be called something else other than "marriage". They have suggested the name "civil union" well back in time. I believe in some states, they have already had civil union for gay people many years ago. However, gay people are not satisfied with it. If, like you say, all these struggle is about the financial benefits that come with the marriage, you shall have it. Then case is closed. Is that all what you want? Obviously that is not what has been going on in US.

I don't understand why Wagner would protest the russian law. After all, it's their country, their law. Their people decided. Their law makers made it. Every country has its own culture, own law. We don't have to agree but we need to respect them. There are countries where a man can have multiple wives in one househood... Even in U.S., it wasn't long ago that gay marrige was not legal, right?

Marriage is also an archetype that a lot of people aspire to. I personally don't really care that much what it's called, but a lot of people do want to "be married" one day... not "be civil unionized". It is belittling and treating them as second class citizens.

The struggle isn't just financial benefits. It's being recognized as a married couple and treated as one. For example, gays previously didn't have visitation rights (and I think some places still deny them that) to see their partner/husband/wife because only "family" of patients could see them. They haven't been been privy to have spousal rights when it comes to medical benefits and be covered for mutual insurance benefits, transfer of property, RRSPs, custody, etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_..._United_States)

Moreover, it's about treating people as equal people. Frankly that's why it should simply be called "marriage" instead of "gay marriage". I didn't have "gay lunch" today, and didn't go to work in my "gay car".

I don't understand why Wagner would protest the russian law. After all, it's their country, their law. Their people decided. Their law makers made it. Every country has its own culture, own law. We don't have to agree but we need to respect them. There are countries where a man can have multiple wives in one househood... Even in U.S., it wasn't long ago that gay marrige was not legal, right?

I'd think that Wagner doesn't really understand about this law. With the way the US media goes, of course it is "horrible" and "inhuman" like Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

I don't understand why Wagner would protest the russian law. After all, it's their country, their law. Their people decided. Their law makers made it. Every country has its own culture, own law. We don't have to agree but we need to respect them. There are countries where a man can have multiple wives in one househood... Even in U.S., it wasn't long ago that gay marrige was not legal, right?

As she has stated, it's because she has many gay friends and is protesting a law that persecutes people for their sexual orientation.

Say in a Middle Eastern country a woman is forced against her will to marry or is stoned to death... should you respect this? Should it be considered wrong for you to speak out against this?

If people in Russia are jailed or fined or having children taken away from them due to deep-seeded homophobia, are you supposed to accept this because that is their law?

You're essentially saying that one shouldn't fight for human rights in other countries as it is only the business of that country and the citizens its laws are oppressing.

As I have said, that is not the law. That is your misinterpretation of the law.

Are you saying the laws do not call for removal of children from parents who are LGBT, who have been raising them for years? Are you saying they do not arrest/fine/jail people who say it is normal to be gay, or who hold hands with their same sex partner, or kiss their same sex partner in public?

CSG, just saying. I live in a big liberal city. There live many gays here. But I NEVER saw a gay man kissing his partner in public.

And if you did, do you think they should be fined/jailed/arrested for doing so? How about holding hands? Because even kissing/holding hands can be constituted as "homosexual propaganda" under these laws if children are present (which is pretty much everywhere ).

And if you did, do you think they should be fined/jailed/arrested for doing so? How about holding hands? Because even kissing/holding hands can be constituted as "homosexual propaganda" under these laws if children are present (which is pretty much everywhere ).

This interpretation of the law really does not exist in Russian law enforcement!

And if you did, do you think they should be fined/jailed/arrested for doing so?

After what I´ve heard I would not recommend a gay public kissing in Russia, but not because of the police. There are possibly people in the streets with unpredictable reactions who do not want to see it.

Are you saying the laws do not call for removal of children from parents who are LGBT, who have been raising them for years? Are you saying they do not arrest/fine/jail people who say it is normal to be gay, or who hold hands with their same sex partner, or kiss their same sex partner in public?

CSG, much as I hate to agree with your opponent here, Bluebonnet is right.

There is nothing in the law that calls for taking children away from LGBT families. There have been several such amendments offered, but it is not a part of the law. Which doesn't mean that a Child Protection officer, enjoying quite a wide range, would not consider children to be at risk living with gay parent(s). In fact, even the denial of adoption into countries supporting gay unions does not appear to be legal - rather, it's judicial activism on the part of the judges who are afraid they wouldn't be complying with the spirit of the law if they allowed such adoptions. Furthermore, at least one such adoption refusal has already been overturned by the Russian Supreme Court, and another one might be on its way, with even Mr-against-foreign-adoptions-Astakhov supporting the heterosexual Russian-Swiss couple in question.

Likewise, despite what you hear, Russia is not about to start arresting people for holding hands or kissing their gay partners. Those that have been arrested for kissing actions have been arrested as demonstrators, not as gays. Legality of such arrests is another issue entirely.

Having said all that, do not forget that Russia is country that is corrupt to its very core. There is always a horrible danger of laws with such a wide potential interpretation in such a society. Essentially, this makes all gays perfect targets for blackmail - do X or we'll call your blog "gay propaganda", do Y or we'll cause you problems with your kids, do Z or we will expose you etc.

quite frankly government should not be involved in marriage at all (straight, gay, or otherwise). let the churches/believers/faiths either say yay or nay we'll perform the ceremony - based on their religious "principle" - and other churches/believers/faiths that have no problem with it be able to perform them. Forget the tax breaks and other "perks" go away.

That used to be my opinion. However, like it or not, the institution of marriage is good for the society. Makes guys more responsible and all that. So from a purely public policy point of view, you still want to have government involved. Oh, and marriage is sill tightly coupled with adoption rights - married couples generally find it easier to adopt then singles, for obvious reasons. So you take the government out of it - and you're leaving all the atheists screwed. Of course you can always do what Israel does - they don't have non-religious marriages, so either you find a registered rabbi/imam/priest/etc. to perform the ceremony, or you do what non-affiliated do and go get married on Cyprus